Recent Comments

Answer Tips

Pinger

18 February 2013

I was just making sure (establishing) that I understand the meaning of that word.

Anyway, looking for an old post on this blog, I have stumbled on another old post of mine (almost 6 years old). That post - Measuring an obsession - shows quite clearly the mind-boggling overabundance of Israel - related articles on the Guardian's CiF (Comment is Free). It has to be read to be believed, I can assure you.

The obsession, as I said, is unbelievable. I doubt there is another non-Jewish media outfit dedicating so much space and effort to Israel - or to bashing Israel, to be precise. Of course, I clearly understand that this phenomenon is not necessarily mirroring the general sentiment of British society, which, by and large, couldn't give a flying donut about Middle East in general and Israel in particular. I understand that Guardian, catering to a specific slice of British population, does what it has to do to keep its congregation happy, other means of entertainment like boob shots and juicy scandals being cornered by other media channels. Still, one would prefer the Guardian scribes and the multitude of CiF contributors to enjoy the said bashing of Israel a bit less obviously. But it's a moot point anyway.

So, for confirmation sake, I've decided to take a look at the last few days of the Guardian's output, to see if something changed. Here come a few of the headlines for three days, from February 13 to February 15:

Three days and nine articles, all of them strictly negative, and this is only a partial selection! Now you tell me - is it sick or is it sick?

So, the conclusion cannot be anything but a confirmation: indeed, in our ever changing world there remains at least this one steady and permanent fixture: the Guardian relentlessly whacking the Zionist entity, no matter what. And you can take it to the bank - not that the banks, owned by the Elders, as it is well known to the readers of the Guardian, will take it from you as a collateral for anything.

Now, you may ask: how could a minor newspaper with a limited customer base be of any significance in this big and busy world? The answer is: this small newspaper with a relatively minuscule customer base punches way above its weight. This is one of the remaining paradoxes related to the twilight of the British Empire: even powerless and reduced (more or less) to confines of that wet island, its press has an influence that still transcends borders. When BBC barks, people still listen. When Guardian yaps, people at least check their shins for damage.

You may be sure that any "criticism" of Israel that appears in the Guardian will be widely disseminated by eager followers of the same ilk. And even by people who are (ostensibly) Guardian's enemies, such as assorted right wing extremists, neo-Nazis and other gutter life, who know a good thing when they see one.

So you can now better understand why a CiF Watch post by Adam Levick about the Prisoner X affair starts with:

Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor at the Observer (sister publication of the Guardian), has already authored, or co-authored, six separate reports (totaling over 5000 words) in less than two days at the Guardian on the row over ‘Prisoner X’.

BUT all of these items also appear (and more than once) in The Tablet (online US Jewish paper), The Times of Israel (self-explanatory), The Algemeiner, The Commentator...

While I am most decidedly an ex-Guardian reader since 2005, I think a concentration on particular stories like these will give a wrong impression, as I tried to show with reference to those online papers, above. Rather, we need to go to, for example, CiF Watch and their analysis of the content, with reference to particular writers to show the full flavour of just how The Guardian differs from the reportage of other English-language paper, on or off-line.

Please don't get me wrong: I no longer read The Guardian for reasons too long and boring to go into, here or anywhere else. I will admit to sometimes going online (for free) to read certain sports reports, but if I had to pay to do so, I wouldn't. It's just that I think we need more than the raw reports to get the full flavour of the awfulness of The Guardian, and you won't get it in the print edition: there are still rules of good taste for that.

Rather, one has to go to the website and to Comment is Free in particular. Then, to save oneself brain ache, short-cut the process by going to to the Comment is Free Watch website. And thank you so much to Adam Levick and his colleagues for throwing yourselves on the grenades so we don't have to.

As an aside, The Guardianistas have that phrase wrong, of course. It was C.P. Scott (of the family that established the Guardian Trust so that the paper couldn't fall into the hands of a ruthless entrepreneur...pity about that, freedom from that sort of commercial pressure has apparently done terminal damage to Guardian notions of fairness, etc) who coined the phrase "Comment is free, but facts are sacred" as a guide as to how to run a (quality) newspaper. The current miserable lot have forgotten, conveniently, the second part of that aphorism, so that they can say what they like without redress.

Because, of course, "comment is free" and to hell with the facts.

My wife has a saying: "My mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts". She's joking, the Guardianistas aren't.